Re: [Monotone-devel] mismatched SHA checksum
> Sorry, that's my fault. I uploaded the binary twice, because the first > version still had a glibc-2.4 symbol in it (and we claim to be > compatible with glibc-2.3). After the first upload, the caching logic > on the website remembered the sha1 sum of that file, and I wasn't able > to convince it to refresh it after the second upload. The correct sha1 > is: 84e72fb610418d848fc1ebe2b3821932cce6c38e mtn-0.48-linux-x86.bz2. Thanks very much. Since I'm sending a message to the list, I want to say thanks to all the contributors for making Monotone great! I've been a Monotone user since early 2007, and it just keeps getting better. Thank you. ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] mismatched SHA checksum
Am Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:24:05 +0200 schrieb Thomas Keller : > When the binary was uploaded, it might have already been looked at > through the downloads page and because of that a wrong checksum of a > partially uploaded file was calculated and cached. This cache > invalidates itself after 24 hours, so it should be correct in a few. The file was indeed uploaded twice, intentionally, as I explained in my other mail. > Sorry for the inconvenience - I start to think I should remove this > dynamic hashing again altogether... We could use file time and size to determine whether the sha1 sum has to be regenerated (same as the mtn inodeprints code does). For security reasons though, it would be best to not automatically regenerate the checksums. - Thomas ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] mismatched SHA checksum
Am Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:21:17 -0700
schrieb "Arthur A. Gleckler" :
> This morning, I downloaded 0.48 for Linux ("mtn-0.48-linux-x86.bz2")
> and the SHA checksum matched. I just downloaded it again on two other
> computers, and in both cases, the checksum didn't match. I don't have
> access to the first computer right now to compare files, but I'm
> wondering if this is a mistake or something sinister. Was that binary
> supposed to have changed this afternoon?
Sorry, that's my fault. I uploaded the binary twice, because the first
version still had a glibc-2.4 symbol in it (and we claim to be
compatible with glibc-2.3). After the first upload, the caching logic
on the website remembered the sha1 sum of that file, and I wasn't able
to convince it to refresh it after the second upload. The correct sha1
is: 84e72fb610418d848fc1ebe2b3821932cce6c38e mtn-0.48-linux-x86.bz2.
- Thomas
___
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] mismatched SHA checksum
Am 15.06.2010 06:21, schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler:
> This morning, I downloaded 0.48 for Linux ("mtn-0.48-linux-x86.bz2")
> and the SHA checksum matched. I just downloaded it again on two other
> computers, and in both cases, the checksum didn't match. I don't have
> access to the first computer right now to compare files, but I'm
> wondering if this is a mistake or something sinister. Was that binary
> supposed to have changed this afternoon?
No, and I think the underlying issue is a problem with the automatic
generation of these checksums, i.e. my code :(
When the binary was uploaded, it might have already been looked at
through the downloads page and because of that a wrong checksum of a
partially uploaded file was calculated and cached. This cache
invalidates itself after 24 hours, so it should be correct in a few.
Sorry for the inconvenience - I start to think I should remove this
dynamic hashing again altogether...
Thomas.
--
GPG-Key 0x160D1092 | tommyd3...@jabber.ccc.de | http://thomaskeller.biz
Please note that according to the EU law on data retention, information
on every electronic information exchange might be retained for a period
of six months or longer: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/?lang=en
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
[Monotone-devel] mismatched SHA checksum
This morning, I downloaded 0.48 for Linux ("mtn-0.48-linux-x86.bz2")
and the SHA checksum matched. I just downloaded it again on two other
computers, and in both cases, the checksum didn't match. I don't have
access to the first computer right now to compare files, but I'm
wondering if this is a mistake or something sinister. Was that binary
supposed to have changed this afternoon?
Thanks.
___
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
